Consider the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem in the following form:

CH: Let $A$ be a commutative ring, $\mathfrak{a}$ an ideal of $A$, $M$ a finitely generated $A$-module, $\phi$ an $A$-module endomorphism of $M$ such that $\phi(M)\subseteq\mathfrak{a}M$. Then there are coefficients $a_i\in\mathfrak{a}$ such that $\phi^n+a_1\phi^{n-1}+\dots+a_n=0$.

This theorem can be proved by using elementary linear algebra in the context of rings. As a corollary, we find the following two versions of Nakayama's Lemma:

NAK1: Let $A$ be a commutative ring, $M$ a finitely generated $A$-module and $\mathfrak{a}\subseteq A$ an Ideal such that $\mathfrak{a}M=M$. Then there is an $x=1\mod\mathfrak{a}$ such that $xM=0$.

Proof. One just sets $\phi=\operatorname{id}$ and plugs in $x=1+a_1+\dots+a_n$.

It follows:

NAK2: Let $M$ be a finitely generated $A$-module, $\mathfrak{a}$ an ideal contained in the Jacobson radical of $A$. Then $\mathfrak{a}M=M$ implies $M=0$.

Proof. Indeed, $xM=0$ for an element $x\in 1+\mathfrak{a}\subseteq 1+J(A)$, which is a unit, hence $M=0$.

However, one can prove Nakayama's Lemma avoiding linear algebra:

Alternative proof of NAK2: Let $u_1,\dots,u_n$ be a generating system of $M$. $u_n\in M=\mathfrak{a}M$, so $u_n=a_1u_1+\dots+a_nu_n$. Subtracting, $(1-a_n)u_n=a_1u_1+\dots+a_{n-1}u_{n-1}$. But $1-a_n$ is a unit, since $a_n\in J(A)$, hence $u_n\in\langle u_1,\dots,u_{n-1}\rangle$. Iterating, we see that all $u_i$ have been zero.

Alternative proof of Nak1: Let $S=1+\mathfrak{a}$. Then $S^{-1}\mathfrak{a}\subseteq J(S^{-1}A)$. If $M=\mathfrak{a}M$, then $S^{-1}M=S^{-1}(\mathfrak{a}M)=(S^{-1}\mathfrak{a})(S^{-1}M)$, thus Nak2 implies $S^{-1}M=0$. As $M$ is finitely generated, there is an $x\in S$ such that $xM=0$.

Now for my question:

Can CH be deduced from Nakayama's Lemma, avoiding linear algebra, in particular the theory of determinants?

By the way, the arguments are taken from Atiyah-Macdonald, I did not find them myself.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If there exists a non-constant polynomial in $\phi$ which is surjective and $M$ is finitely generated, then yes. $M$ is naturally an $A[x]$ module with $x$ acting as $\phi$. Then $p(\phi)M=M$ for some $p$ so there exists $q[x] \in A[x]$ with $q(\phi)M=0$. For certain cases (i.e. when $A=\Bbb R$), this is enough as $kI+\phi$ is always invertible for sufficiently large $k$. $\endgroup$ – PVAL-inactive Jul 7 '15 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ Of course you can't avoid linear algebras, as modules themselves are part of linear algebra. the question is, as it stands, ill-posed.. $\endgroup$ – Mister Benjamin Dover Jul 7 '15 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @BenDover then, why are some books called "homological algebra", others "commutative algebra" and some are called "linear algebra"? I don't think linear algebra can be defined as the theory of modules. $\endgroup$ – Jakob Werner Jul 7 '15 at 22:35
  • $\begingroup$ @JakobWerner it is very simple: because they deal with different aspects of modules (e.g. commutative algebra deals a lot with "local" properties of modules, and solely with modules over commutative rings; classical homological algebra with derived functors of functors on categories of modules over a not necessairyl commutative ring). Ofc these subjects are all related, and linear algebra is the most basic subject of these. I never said that linear algebra "is" the theory of modules, but that the notion of a "module" is a notion of linear algebra. many people agree with this, e.g. bourbaki. $\endgroup$ – Mister Benjamin Dover Jul 7 '15 at 23:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The point of CH is not that $\phi$ satisfies is a polynomial equation but that it satisfies is a polynomial equation of degree $n$. See math.stackexchange.com/q/1310609/589. $\endgroup$ – lhf Jul 8 '15 at 13:05

Nakayama Lemma. Let $N$ be a finitely generated $R$-module, and $J\subseteq R$. Suppose that $J$ is closed under addition and multiplication and $JN=N$. Then there is $a\in J$ such that $(1+a)N=0$. (Here by $JN$ we denote the subset of linear combinations of $N$ with coefficients in $J$.)

Cayley-Hamilton Theorem. Let $A$ be a commutative ring, $I$ an ideal of $A$, $M$ a finitely generated $A$-module, $\phi$ an $A$-module endomorphism of $M$ such that $\phi(M)\subseteq IM$. Then there are $n\ge 1$ and $a_i\in I^i$ such that $\phi^n+a_1\phi^{n-1}+\dots+a_n=0$.

Nakayama Lemma implies Cayley-Hamilton Theorem:

$M$ is an $A[X]$-module via $Xm=\varphi(m)$. Moreover, $M$ is also a finitely generated $A[X]$-module. By hypothesis $XM\subseteq IM$. Now consider the ring $A[X,X^{-1}]$, the localization of $A[X]$ with respect to the multiplicative set $S$ generated by $X$, and the finitely generated $A[X,X^{-1}]$-module $S^{-1}M$ (which we denote by $M[X^{-1}]$). The set $$J=\{a_1X^{-1}+\cdots+a_{r}X^{-r}:a_i\in I^i, r\ge1\}$$ is closed under addition and multiplication, and moreover $JM[X^{-1}]=M[X^{-1}]$: if $m\in M$ and since $XM\subseteq IM$ we have $Xm\in IM$. Then $Xm=a_1m_1+\cdots+a_nm_n$ with $a_j\in I$, and therefore $m=(a_1X^{-1})m_1+\cdots+(a_nX^{-1})m_n\in JM[X^{-1}]$.

Now by Nakayama Lemma (for $R=A[X,X^{-1}]$ and $N=M[X^{-1}]$) there is $p\ge 1$ such that $(1+a_1X^{-1}+\cdots+a_{p}X^{-p})M[X^{-1}]=0$. In particular, $(1+a_1X^{-1}+\cdots+a_{p}X^{-p})M=0$, that is, $\dfrac{(X^p+a_1X^{p-1}+\cdots+a_p)m}{X^p}=0$ for all $m\in M$. Since $M$ is finitely generated there is $s\ge0$ such that $X^s(X^p+a_1X^{p-1}+\cdots+a_p)M=0$. Now set $n=s+p$ and conclude that $\varphi^{n}+a_1\varphi^{n-1}+\cdots+a_n=0$ with $a_i\in I^i$.

  • $\begingroup$ Basically right, but two corrections. The equation $(X^n+a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n) M = 0$ is true in $M[X^{-1}]$. Since $M$ need not inject into $M[X^{-1}]$, this doesn't prove the claim in $M$. However, you do get to deduce $(X^n+a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n) M \subset \mathrm{Ker}(M \to M[X^{-1}])$ and thus (since $M$ is finitely generated) $X^s (X^n+a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n) M=0$ for some $s$. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jul 8 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, the name of your ring switched from $R$ to $A$ between the theorem statement and the proof. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Jul 8 '15 at 13:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DavidSpeyer Thanks for the comments. I've just edited the initial proof, but it seems this wasn't the best choice. (Actually I wanted to obtain $a_i\in I^i$ which is one of the common conclusions of C-H.) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Jul 8 '15 at 13:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Unless I am mistaken, your version of Nakayama is not true. See my answer at math.stackexchange.com/questions/2102320/…. Beware that if $J$ is not an ideal, $JN=N$ does not imply that if $S$ generates $N$ then every element of $N$ is a $J$-linear combination of elements of $S$, which breaks many of the usual proofs of Nakayama. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jan 17 '17 at 23:58
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Anyway, it seems I've aimed to a sharper version of Cayley-Hamilton. If one restricts to the version stated by the OP and use $IA[X,A^{-1}]$ instead of $J$, then we are done. (I don't edit the answer for now, but I'll do it soon.) $\endgroup$ – user26857 Jan 18 '17 at 9:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.